The other comment is using undiluted MRA & anti-feminist talking points without compromise or condition. The only way to read it charitably is to insert statements they didn't make, but easily could have and chose not to.
The person seemed to be commenting from a place of anger at how their brother was treated adversarially in his time of greatest need.
I volunteered with homeless people for years, and 80% or more were men. This issue is close to my heart as well and I absolutely think the commenter was pointing out relevant systemic issues, including touching on toxic masculinity and its attitude of treating other men adverserially
> The only way to read it charitably is to insert statements they didn't make, but easily could have and chose not to.
By the same token, can you explain how it can be read uncharitably without inserting statements they didn't make? Because as you said, they "easily could have" included misogynistic commentary "and chose not to"
You yourself were enough aware of this context and dynamic that you carefully phrased your comment to avoid it. It's dog whistle shit, intentionally plausibly deniable neutral-seeming language. Corin called it out and you're saying "but plausibly, couldn't they deny this?" Yes! That's the point of it.
I talked about caring for men. It makes them so angry to care about men. When we talk about men freezing to death on the streets, the topic extends to "toxic patriarchy". I not participate in these abstract conceptual fictitious wars of mainstream though on any side. I care about helping life. Men are your brothers and need to be saved.
One day the world will wake up from their trance. I am optimistic.